The Universal House of Justice:

Shoghi Effendi wrote that the Bahá’í Faith should be “loyally and intelligently” adapted to meet “the requirements of progressive society” and kept “in the forefront of all progressive movements”. (WOB 20, 23)  To be at the forefront of progress implies that the Bahá’í community will need, not just to keep pace with progress, but to be in the lead. It means that in a world where the rate of change in science, technology, the arts, and commerce is ever-accelerating, the rate of change within the Bahá’í community must accelerate even faster. This suggests that its individual members and institutions need to work together to create a community that is well-informed, open to new ideas, progressive, innovative, creative, dynamic, ever-changing, ever-evolving, ever-advancing.

This may sound great, but it is not easy to achieve. If we look back through history, we see that religious communities have been sorely tested by change.  A well-known example is the Catholic Church’s persecution Galileo. Christianity has always struggled to adapt itself to advancement of scientific knowledge to such an extent that within Christianity today a virtually unbridgeable divide exists between science and Christian theology.

How can we be sure that the Bahá’í Faith won’t follow a similar course? How will it be possible for the Bahá’í community to stay at the “forefront of all progressive movements”? 

Will it be possible for the Bahá’í Faith to adapt to meet the changing requirements of an ever-evolving community without jeopardising its unity or without compromising its fundamental beliefs?  These questions are serious and challenging, for they raise fundamental issues that are central to the relevance of the Faith to humanity’s future.

As we seek answers to these questions, it seems useful to look at how the Bahá’í Faith meets three criteria on which the management of change in a constructive manner depends.

First, change must flow from a recognised source of authority, otherwise polarisation is likely to occur, factions will arise, and schism take place. If change emerges in one place and people in another part of the world don’t recognise it, polarisation can occur. Similarly, if change is instituted by those who subscribe to a certain set of social, economic or political ideas that another group doesn’t endorse, factions can arise and schism take place. Having a central, recognised source of authority ultimately responsible for instituting change will prevent polarisation, factionalism and division.

Second, the community must have a clear idea as to what can be changed and what cannot. If there is no clarify on what is immutable and what is variable, there will very likely be tension and conflict, for some will be inclined to cling to what others regard as secondary principles and doctrines they regard as of minor importance, while others will be inclined to embrace new ideas and beliefs that others feel conflict with core beliefs and values.

Throughout history, the inability of organisations and communities to maintain a healthy balance between stability and change has been a major cause of disruption and division. In commerce, for example, companies have to be careful not to change what is central to their identity lest they lose the loyalty of their customers. Coca-Cola, for example, over the years has changed the packaging of its product many times and tinkered with its logo, but the drink itself was always sacrosanct until about ten years ago when top management decided to change its formula, and consequently its taste. They soon found that they had mis-calculated the public’s response to the change: many loyal Coke consumers were outraged. They organised themselves, and initiated petitions and protests that threw the company into turmoil. It had to backtrack, and wound up re-issuing the old Coke under the name, “Coke Classic.”  In religion, we see in Judaism, Christianity and Islam striking examples of how some groups reject any form of change and others embrace it to the extent of abandoning fundamental tenets of their faith. For example, the Hasid in Judaism, the Mennonites and Amish in Christianity and the Taleeban in Islam cling to past ways, while others -- Jews for Christ, for example -- embrace change to such an extent that they reject basic precepts of their faith and create an enormous amount of tension within their religious community.

How does the Bahá’í Faith stand up to the need to strike a balance between stability and change, between what is essential and what is secondary?

3. Lastly, the rate of change has to be carefully gauged and regulated so that it is does not so slow as to fall behind the natural rate of change within the community on one hand and not so fast as to leave the community disoriented and ripped from its moorings, on the other.    

I would now like to look at how the Bahá’í Faith meets these three requirements.

1. Change must flow from a recognised source of authority so that polarisation won’t occur, factions arise and schism take place.

As you know, in order to ensure the continuity of authority over the affairs of His Faith and preserve its unity, Bahá’u’lláh instituted His Covenant and named `Abdu’l-Bahá, His eldest son, as the Centre of His Covenant and the One to whom all must turn. `Abdu’l-Bahá in His turn elaborated upon the provisions of Bahá’u’lláh’s Covenant in His Will and Testament, putting in place a set of institutional arrangements, many inaugurated by Bahá’u’lláh Himself, that would ensure the continuity of authority over His Father’s Faith into the future.  Foremost among the provisions instituted by `Abdu’l-Bahá was the designation of  the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice as His twin successors.

The provisions of the Covenant are well known to you and the authority vested in `Abdu’l-Bahá, the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice in Bahá’u’lláh’s Book of the Covenant and `Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament have never been seriously challenged, even by those who have opposed them. 

One of the fundamental purposes of the Covenant is to preserve the unity of the Faith by having a clearly designated centre of authority to whom all must turn. During the Ministry of `Abdu’l-Bahá, the Master was the Centre of the Covenant, and after His passing, the Centre of the Covenant became the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, as the Universal House of Justice hadn’t yet been brought into being. After the passing of the Guardian, the Hands of the Cause of God, designated by Shoghi Effendi as “the Chief Stewards of Bahá’u’lláh’s embryonic World Commonwealth” (MBW 127) were recognised by the Bahá’í community as comprising the head of the Faith and they, in turn, brought the Universal House of Justice into being in 1963 by convening the first International Bahá’í Convention at which the 56 National Spiritual Assemblies in existence at the time elected the first members of the Universal House of Justice. (MUHJ 2.1)  The Universal House of Justice is the head of the Faith and the Centre of the Covenant for this day, and thus is, as it has attested, “in a position to do everything necessary to establish the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh on this earth.” (MUHJ 23.20)

What is particularly relevant to our discussion is that in His Writings Bahá’u’lláh has specifically invested the Universal House of Justice with the authority to institute innovation and change in His Faith.

Consider these words of Bahá’u’lláh in the Tablet of Ishráqát (Splendours):

Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. (TB 129)

Moreover, in Kalimát-i-Firdawsíyyih (Words of Paradise), Bahá’u’lláh states:

It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them.  God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.”(TB 68)

Here we have a clear statement from the Pen of Bahá’u’lláh conferring on the Universal House of Justice the authority to adapt His Faith to meet the changing requirements of the day. In the annuals of religious history this is unprecedented.

This, then, solves the problem of having a designated centre that has the authority to institute change.  As we have seen, we have, in the provisions of the Covenant, both a recognised source of authority to whom all must turn, and one that is specifically authorised to manage the introduction of change. I would like to stress that these are two separate functions, for it is possible to envision there being a recognised centre to whom all must turn who had not been authorised to institute change.

What then about our second point?

2. The community must have a clear idea as to what the parameters are for change, that is, what can be changed and what cannot.

Bahá’u’lláh, in addition to investing the Universal House of Justice with the authority to institute change, has defined the parameters in which the House of Justice is to exercise its power to legislate change. In the passage cited earlier from Kalimát-i-Firdawsíyyih (Words of Paradise), Bahá’u’lláh states: “It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book,” thereby implying that those things that have been outwardly revealed in the Book are not subject to change.  Lest there be no doubt about it, `Abdu’l-Bahá explains the matter quite clearly:

Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice.  The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice will take action accordingly. (MUHJ 35.7a)

Moreover, in His Will and Testament, `Abdu’l-Bahá elaborates on the authority of the Universal House of Justice and the sphere in which it is able to enact change:

It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect at the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same. Thus, for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law. This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws.” (W&T 20)

In view of these texts, the terms of the Universal House of Justice’s sphere of decision-making has been clearly prescribed. It can never, for example, move the World Centre of the Faith to Tehran, London, or New York because Bahá’u’lláh in the Tablet of Carmel has designated that it is to be in Haifa.  It can never introduce a fourth obligatory prayer because Bahá’u’lláh has clearly stated that “All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.” (TB 27)

By clearly distinguishing between those things that cannot be changed and those things that can be changed, Bahá’u’lláh and `Abdu’l-Bahá have both removed from the Bahá’í Faith what has been throughout history a source of tension and schism.  They have on one hand  provided a means for ensuring that the integrity of the Faith’s essential teachings is forever maintained, while on the other have given the Universal House of Justice a clearly defined sphere in which it is to exercise its prerogatives as the authoritative enactor of change in the Bahá’í Dispensation.

Lastly, we come to the third criterion:

3. The rate of change has to be carefully gauged and regulated so that it is not so slow as to fall behind the community on one hand and not so fast as to leave the community disoriented and ripped from its moorings. It seems to me that the fulfilment of this criterion falls more in the realm of wisdom. In one of His Tablets, Bahá’u’lláh quotes the following saying: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.” (GWB 176) The same can be said for change.  Not every change that may be needed can be considered timely or suited to the capacity of the community. Here, I think, four things come into play:

1. Bahá’u’lláh has guaranteed that the decisions of the Universal House of Justice are divinely inspired: As we have already seen, Bahá’u’lláh promises us that “God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.” With this guarantee  we can be confident that whatever changes the Universal House of Justice introduces are suited to the conditions of the community and that it is within the capacity of  the community to adopt them. This does not mean that accepting and implementing the changes introduced by the Universal House of Justice will be easy; indeed, more often than not they may be difficult and challenging.

2. We must prepare ourselves mentally to belong to a Faith and to live in a community that is progressive and predisposed towards change, in which change is part of our daily diet. This in itself is a challenge, as any community has within it people who exhibit different attitudes towards change. My wife Amy, who teaches marketing at the University of Cape Town, tells me that those who study the diffusion of innovation say that when it comes to change there are five categories of people: innovators, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards, and that new products, technologies and innovations are typically instituted by innovators, then picked up by early adaptors, then the early majority, followed by the late majority, and finally by the laggards.  The challenge we face as members of the Bahá’í community is to study the messages of the Universal House of Justice and to ensure that we are keeping up with the House of Justice and don’t inadvertently become laggards and slow down the community’s advancement.  Similarly, institutions at the local, regional and national levels have to ensure that they, too, keep up with the changes instituted by the House of Justice and don’t stymie the innovators and early adaptors among us who read the messages of the House of Justice and are ready to move.

3. When it comes to instituting change, we need to be mindful that the Administrative Order provides for change to be instituted not just by the head of the Faith, but at all levels. Indeed, each institution of the Faith and every individual believer has a sphere within which it can institute change and in this respect we all operate as change agents within the Faith and within society. Guided by the Writings of the Faith and operating according to the processes and frameworks of decision-making enshrined within the Administrative Order, we have enormous latitude for movement.  Indeed, throughout the history of the Faith, many important developments have been initiated first by individuals, and then recognised or endorsed by the institutions of the Faith.  The development of the first House of Worship in the West, Bahá’í schools and social and economic development projects are cases in point. Many started out as individual initiatives and then later were adopted by the institutions of the Faith.  Thus the process of change within the Faith is not something that rests solely with the Universal House of Justice, but with every individual and institution within the Bahá’í Faith.

4. Lastly, consultation is a tool for collective action that enables us to take decisions about what changes to institute while preserving unity. When a change is needed, it can be consulted on in the appropriate setting, whether it be the family, with friends, at the Nineteen Day Feast, within the Local Spiritual Assembly, or at the National Convention. These are forums for the airing of views about change and it is through consultation that viewpoints can be shared and decisions made as to whether proposed change would conflict with essential teachings of the Faith, at what level a decision should be taken, whether it is wise in view of the overall condition of the community, and so on.  Thus consultation facilitates the introduction of change by widening perspective, subjecting the proposal to the collective wisdom of the group, and creating a basis for informed, thoughtful and unified action.

We as individuals can assist the consultative process by deepening ourselves in the teachings so that we know what is immutable, unchangeable and eternal on one hand, and what is of secondary importance and subject to change on the other, and to be well-informed of the current guidance of the Universal House of Justice so that we can in a position to know in what direction the Bahá’í community should be heading.

To illustrate how the Universal House of Justice exercises wisdom in leading the Bahá’í community through the process of change, I would like to site two instances as case studies. One is the introduction of the law of the Right of God, Huququ’llah, from that point in 1984 when Bahá’ís at the National Convention in the United States, in response to an inspiring talk on Huququ’llah given by the Hand of the Cause of God Zikrullah Khadem, sent a petition to the House of Justice asking that the law be made binding on the Bahá’ís of the West. (MUHJ 404)  The other is how the House of Justice has been gradually preparing the Bahá’í world for the stage of mass conversion, in keeping with Shoghi Effendi’s vision of “that long awaited hour when a mass conversion on the part of these same nations and races, and as a direct result of a chain of events, momentous and possibly catastrophic in nature, and which cannot as yet be even dimly visualized, will suddenly revolutionize the fortunes of the Faith, derange the equilibrium of the world, and reinforce a thousandfold the numerical strength as well as the material power and the spiritual authority of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh.” (CF 117) 

As to the introduction of the Right of God, lack of time requires that you review the messages from the House of Justice for yourselves and see how its preparation of the Bahá’í community to receive this law of God exemplifies its wise and systematic approach to instituting change within the Faith. As to the preparation of the Bahá’í community for mass conversion, this in itself would require a paper of its own to cover adequately, but for our purposes here, I would like to read the following passages from paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Universal House of Justice’s Ridván Message of 153 BE inaugurating the Four Year Plan:

     The Four Year Plan aims at one major accomplishment: a significant advance in the process of entry by troops....

     The phrase “advance in the process of entry by troops” accommodates the concept that current circumstances demand and existing opportunities allow for a sustained growth of the Bahá’í world community on a large scale; that this upsurge is necessary in the face of world conditions; that the three constituent participants in the upbuilding of the Order of Bahá’u’lláh--the individual, the institutions, and the community--can foster such growth first by spiritually and mentally accepting the possibility of it, and then by working towards embracing masses of new believers, setting in motion the means for effecting their spiritual and administrative training and development, thereby multiplying the number of knowledgeable, active teachers and administrators whose involvement in the work of the Cause will ensure a constant influx of new adherents, an uninterrupted evolution of Bahá’í Assemblies, and a steady consolidation of the community.

Here we see how the Universal House of Justice elucidates the process of change, first by helping the Bahá’í world come to a conscious understanding of the processes involved, and then by putting in place the structures and frameworks, such as training institutes and the requirements of the Four Year Plan itself, necessary for the realisation of those processes.

Although we must acknowledge that no religious system in the past has succeeded in adapting itself to the changing requirements of the times over a period of centuries, we must also acknowledge that Bahá’u’lláh and `Abdu’l-Bahá have, for the first time in history, invested sufficient authority and discretionary powers in their chosen successors as to enable them to guide and direct its evolution, without division or compromise, towards its ultimate goal--the establishment of the Bahá’í World Commonwealth, which, in the words of Shoghi Effendi, “will signalize the long-awaited advent of the Christ-promised Kingdom of God on earth--the Kingdom of Bahá’u’lláh--mirroring however faintly upon this humble handful of dust the glories of the Abhá Kingdom.” (MBW 155)

Sources used in order of appearance

WOB       World Order of Bahá’u’lláh

MBW       Messages to the Bahá’í World

MUHJ  Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1963-1986

TB            Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh

W&T        The Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá

GWB        Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

CF            Citadel of Faith